Israel, Iran, and the Bomb

[Winstonm]

From Israel Insider:

 

With no alternative but to fight fire with fire, the Israel Air Force is training for a tactical nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear production facilities. As hope fades for a diplomatic solution to Iran's development of enriched uranium for production of weapons with the primary purpose of destroying Israel, the IAF is practicing for a mission to destroy key Iranian facilities, at least one with low-yield nuclear munitions, the Times of London reported.

 

Comment:

 

Iran is building power stations, which it is allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which the United States and Iran have signed. Under the NNPT Iran has the right to produce their own fuel rods.

 

Nobody has found any proof that Iran is doing anything other than building a power station. The IAEA has declared that Iran is not making weapons.

 

If the Times' report is accurate, Israel is getting ready to carry out an unprovoked attack, using nuclear weapons, on another nation.

 

Isn't this the crime Israel is claiming Iran is supposed to be planning?

 

At what point do preemptive security strikes become crimes of aggression?

[mike777]

I am still at a loss why Iran or you or anyone cannot have all the nukes they want.

Where is Congress on this?

Where are the Presidential candidates on this issue?

I see no debate of this issue at all.

 

Even WinstonM is silent on why we or anyone should ever attack Iran for any reason? :) Revenge, eye for an eye, some other reason?

[Winstonm]

I can tell you my position. The proliferation of nuclear weapons surely makes the world a more dangerous place; hence, I support the NNPT. Under this agreement, nuclear arsenals are supposed to be reduced, but so far I've seen little evidence that any countries who now hold nuclear arms are willing to do this.

 

Iran has signed the NNPT. The U.S. has signed, too. Therefore, what Iran is doing is legal and justified under this treaty. If the concern is a country such as Iran using the NNPT to hide a nuclear weapons program, then it is in the world's interest to come up with a better treaty that allows peaceful power production while preventing nuclear arms programs.

 

It would seem that if Iran's true intentions were peaceful, they would have no problem signing a new treaty with more oversight/investigative control; if they refuse to sign, that would add to the circumstantial evidedence that their goals were not peaceful.

[mike777]

Winston I do not want to put words into your post but you seem to infer that if there is circumstantail evidence that Iran, at some point in the future,,may want to build or at least reserve the right to build nukes we go to war, we or Israel bombs?

 

Are you saying if they even think about building nukes at some vague point in the future we go to war?

 

As for Iran not having peaceful goals, I thought they already have some goals that are not peaceful and already act on those nonpeaceful goals? Again nonpeaceful goals are reason enough to go to war?

 

In any event why do we or Israel have to bomb them? What about France, India or China or Russia...they got bombs, they got planes.

 

This sort of reminds of the whole Pakistan discussion, we seem to be afraid that some vague group of muslim men will get nukes and we, the usa should do something about it for some reason..Not India or China or Russia or France.

[whereagles]

Revenge, eye for an eye, some other reason?

That's the kind of reasoning that can get us all killed...

[hrothgar]

Winston I do not want to put words into your post but you seem to infer that if there is circumstantail evidence that Iran, at some point in the future,,may want to build or at least reserve the right to build nukes we go to war, we or Israel bombs?

 

Are you saying if they even think about building nukes at some vague point in the future we go to war?

 

As for Iran not having peaceful goals, I thought they already have some goals that are not peaceful and already act on those nonpeaceful goals? Again nonpeaceful goals are reason enough to go to war?

 

In any event why do we or Israel have to bomb them? What about France, India or China or Russia...they got bombs, they got planes.

 

This sort of reminds of the whole Pakistan discussion, we seem to be afraid that some vague group of muslim men will get nukes and we, the usa should do something about it for some reason..Not India or China or Russia or France.

Why should Winston justify a (hypothetical) decision by either Israel or the United States to attack Iran?

 

He hasn't taken any kind of advocacy position. He simply framed some questions for discussion.

 

If you want to see the arguments in favor of bombing Iran, they're readily available in the National Review, the Weekly Standard, or any one of a variety of Neo Conservative mouth pieces.

 

For what its worth, I suspect that the reason that the United States (or the Israeli's) "have to bomb them" is that we're the only ones who have the necessary combination of capacity and stupidity.

[jtfanclub]

For what its worth, I suspect that the reason that the United States (or the Israeli's) "have to bomb them" is that we're the only ones who have the necessary combination of capacity and stupidity.

Or that we're already effectively at war with them...

 

Twice now, Israel has attacked Middle Eastern nuclear facilities with no repercussions. Take it as a sign of whatever you want, but I fully expect Iran to be the third, in a decade or so.

 

I do not expect the attack to be nuclear.

[Winstonm]

The question is: at what point does preemptive defensive engagement become a crime? Is there ever justification for it or is preemption just another word for aggression?

 

A related question - if Israel attacked Iran, and Iran retaliated, would the U.S. be obligated to respond under the U.S./Israel Mutual Defense Pact? Could the U.S. be held hostage to validate Israeli preemption?

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure I get all of this, from a logical perspective.

 

It seems to me that if a country sends in soldiers to fight our soldiers on a battlefield, then we are at war. If we are at war, then we can send in our soldiers to attack them. I believe that Iran has been funding or sending in soldiers into Iraq to fight our soldiers (USA), no? (Uniforms and flags are not necessary to be soldiers, by the way.)

 

However, we now have things all screwed up.

 

On the one hand, you have the "neo-cons" talking about the need to take out nuclear capabilities. What difference does it really make if they do or do not have capabilities? If we believe that they have troops on the ground in Iraq, we can legitimately invade Iran for that reason alone. Blasting a hole in a factory is perfectly legitimate.

 

On the other hand, you have people like Winston asking whether a specific type of attack on a country who is presently in a battle with us is a preemptive strike. I have no idea what that means, in this context. What are we preempting, if we are already at war with Iran?

 

OH! I GET IT! No one, neither neo-cons nor the others, wants to admit that we are at war with Iran already. Now it makes perfect sense. You just apply the language of make-believe land.

[Winstonm]

Winston I do not want to put words into your post but you seem to infer that if there is circumstantail evidence that Iran, at some point in the future,,may want to build or at least reserve the right to build nukes we go to war, we or Israel bombs?

 

Are you saying if they even think about building nukes at some vague point in the future we go to war?

 

As for Iran not having peaceful goals, I thought they already have some goals that are not peaceful and already act on those nonpeaceful goals? Again nonpeaceful goals are reason enough to go to war?

 

In any event why do we or Israel have to bomb them? What about France, India or China or Russia...they got bombs, they got planes.

 

This sort of reminds of the whole Pakistan discussion, we seem to be afraid that some vague group of muslim men will get nukes and we, the usa should do something about it for some reason..Not India or China or Russia or France.

Mike, the question I am interested in is at what point do the claims of Israel for preemptive self defense cross the bounds into non-justified aggression?

 

It could be argued they have no right, limited rights, or total rights to this type action. I'm simply wondering how the BBO community sees things.

[Winstonm]

On the other hand, you have people like Winston asking whether a specific type of attack on a country who is presently in a battle with us is a preemptive strike. I have no idea what that means, in this context. What are we preempting, if we are already at war with Iran?

 

 

Ken, you misread the post. The question is not about the U.S. but about Israel's actions. Does Israel have justification for attacking Iran's purported nuclear plants?

 

As a cooperating nation and a signer of the NNPT, Iran was granted by treaty the right to build nuclear power plants; if Israel bombs those plants without concrete proof that they are developing nuclear arms (which violates the treaty), which side should the U.S. take - the aggressor (Israel) or the co-signer of the treaty (Iran)?

[mike777]

The question is: at what point does preemptive defensive engagement become a crime?  Is there ever justification for it or is preemption just another word for aggression?

 

A related question - if Israel attacked Iran, and Iran retaliated, would the U.S. be obligated to respond under the U.S./Israel Mutual Defense Pact?   Could the U.S. be held hostage to validate Israeli preemption?

Very interesting questions, again it would be nice to see Congress or the future leaders debate these questions.

 

I note there seems to be an assumption, perhaps I am in error but you seem to assume the following facts are not true/false facts?

1) Iran today is responsible for thousands if not more of innocent deaths, women and children going on in Iraq?

2) Iran today is murdering USA service men and women in Iraq.

3) Iran today is responsible for deaths of innocent women and children being killed or wounded in Israel.

4) Iran murders Israeli soldiers

 

Of course none of the above, if you accept these as facts, means anyone should bomb or attack Iran.

 

If you think these facts are false/lies or untrue bombing Iran must seem even more insane. B)

 

Let's add when the Iranian leader came to the USA and spoke at a major USA University he was ridiculed and insulted at the University and in most of the mainstream press. So much for talking.......

[mike777]

Besides if anyone nukes someone in the Mideast, I thought the fallout or poison kills a bunch of people all over the world or at least in Asia?

[Winstonm]

It seems to me that if a country sends in soldiers to fight our soldiers on a battlefield, then we are at war. If we are at war, then we can send in our soldiers to attack them. I believe that Iran has been funding or sending in soldiers into Iraq to fight our soldiers (USA), no? (Uniforms and flags are not necessary to be soldiers, by the way.)

 

Ken, my brother happens to be a Colonel (Chaplain) U.S. Army, and he and I discussed this issue the other night. His view (as well as mine) is that the U.S. already won the war - what is occuring now is attempted political stabalization.

Whether or not that is possible is highly debatable, given the history of the region and country.

 

Iran, Syria, and others are certainly supporting various sects, but it is quite a stretch to call their actions acts of war - acts of political agenda is more like it.

[mike777]

"Mike, the question I am interested in is at what point do the claims of Israel for preemptive self defense cross the bounds into non-justified aggression"

 

 

Well I thought Iran is already paying people to shoot and providing missiles/rockets and bombs that land and kill already....

 

I do wonder in 2007 why the bombs and missiles/rockets are not more powerful but why should any of that justify bombing Iran by anyone?

[Winstonm]

The question is: at what point does preemptive defensive engagement become a crime?  Is there ever justification for it or is preemption just another word for aggression?

 

A related question - if Israel attacked Iran, and Iran retaliated, would the U.S. be obligated to respond under the U.S./Israel Mutual Defense Pact?   Could the U.S. be held hostage to validate Israeli preemption?

Very interesting questions, again it would be nice to see Congress or the future leaders debate these questions.

 

I note there seems to be an assumption, perhaps I am in error but you seem to assume the following facts are not true/false facts?

1) Iran today is responsible for thousands if not more of innocent deaths, women and children going on in Iraq?

2) Iran today is murdering USA service men and woman in Iraq.

3) Iran today is responsible for deaths of innocent women and children being killed or wounded in Israel.

4) Iran murders Israeli soldiers

 

Of course none of the above, if you accept these as facts, means anyone should bomb or attack Iran.

 

If you think these facts are false/lies or untrue bombing Iran must seem even more insane. :P

 

Let's add when the Iranian leader came to the USA and spoke at a major USA University he was ridiculed and insulted at the University and in most of the mainstream press. So much for talking.......

You know, Mike, it would be nice if the world could be separated into black or white, right or wrong, good and bad - but the real world is a swirl of gray.

 

I have my personal biases, of which I am mostly aware, but have the capacity to listen to other sides without contempt - I do have to say, though, that when it comes to something as serious as warfare, speculation and suspicion are not enough justification in my mind for action - surely, there is a better way to find out truth than either guess or wait until it is too late.

 

I am with you. I would like to see this debated.

[mike777]

Of course it is difficult to debate if:

1) we cannot agree on facts

2) in the best of cases we are dealing with incomplete information

3) it would be nice to make a decision......but I sometimes think some would just prefer the debate..never a decision.

 

 

That is why Congress is a debate society..and the President must be a leader and a decider......just decide....:P

 

Some might add the UN is just a debate society but that is another discussion for another thread. :)

[Winstonm]

Well I thought Iran is already paying people to shoot and providing missiles/rockets and bombs that land and kill already....

 

This type of action certainly isn't limited to Iran - the U.S. has a long history of doing the same to support its agendas, and other countries have done so, as well.

[mike777]

Well I thought Iran is already paying people to shoot and providing missiles/rockets and bombs that land and kill already....

 

This type of action certainly isn't limited to Iran - the U.S. has a long history of doing the same to support its agendas, and other countries have done so, as well.

Well if you are saying what the USA or other countries do or did is the moral equilavent to what Iran is doing....fair enough.

 

I knew it was our fault. :P

[Winstonm]

That is why Congress is a debate society..and the President must be a leader and a decider......just decide....

 

We go full circle to separation of powers. It is Congress who declares war, not the President.

 

However, I am beginning to believe that the American people would rather live under the rule of a benevolent dictator and liet him make all the decisions than take the trouble to be informed if so doing meant missing an episode of Dance With the Stars or American Idol.

[Winstonm]

Well if you are saying what the USA or other countries do or did is the moral equilavent to what Iran is doing....fair enough.

 

It's rather difficult for the U.S. to take the moral high ground when torture is a state-approved interrogation technique, the State Department Blackwater commandos are allowed to murder without repercussions or penalty, and (depending on source) up to 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed because of U.S. actions taken due to the falsehoods of WMD, reconsituted nuclear ambitions, and Al-Qaeda ties.

 

I'm not saying what Iran is doing is right - at the same time, how we we defend what we have done and continue to do?

[blackshoe]

An act of war is an "act of political agenda". Ask von Clausewitz.

[sceptic]

I have this Theory, Iran have had nuclear weapons for years and the reason that we invaded Iraq was based on Bushes inability to diferentiate his q's from his n's, just the same as he seems unable to diferentiate his ass from his elbow

[mike777]

Well if you are saying what the USA or other countries do or did is the moral equilavent to what Iran is doing....fair enough.

 

It's rather difficult for the U.S. to take the moral high ground when torture is a state-approved interrogation technique, the State Department Blackwater commandos are allowed to murder without repercussions or penalty, and (depending on source) up to 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed because of U.S. actions taken due to the falsehoods of WMD, reconsituted nuclear ambitions, and Al-Qaeda ties.

 

I'm not saying what Iran is doing is right - at the same time, how we we defend what we have done and continue to do?

I cant...if 1million are dead because of how the USA citizens voted.......I guess we are terrible. We get the government we deserve.....we are not victims.

Note we replace the House 100% every 2 years and 1/3 of the senate every two years...and the president every 4....not really that long of a time. Please note we are not a UK style government....

 

I note we still are funding the war....with billions and billions.

[Winstonm]

I believe the question to address is "how great is the risk?" There is no doubt that a certain percentage of extreme fundamental Islamists are very dangerous, but from what I have read they hold almost as much hatred for moderate Islamists as for the U.S. How big of group is this, and what is the direct risk for the U.S.A.

 

It only takes a couple of nuts to cause terrible damage, but do you go to war to crack and roast a few nuts?

 

In my mind, a comparison in size of risk could be made to Christianity - it would be like invading Texas because of the risk posed by David Koresh and his brand of fundamentalism.

 

Maybe I am wrong; maybe the size of the enemy is much greater and the threat more urgent - I know my brother the Colonel believes this to be so. In fact, he told me the other night that if we weren't disrupting al-Qaeda oversees, within a year there would be another attack on the U.S.

 

Seems to me, though, that if al-Qaeda was intent on attacking the U.S., they could do so regardless of whether our armies were here or there - after all, how many does it take to organize and carry out an attack: 20-30?